What is Catholicism?

[37818]

God the Father and the Holy Spirit are both also Lord/Yahweh!

Matthew 22:41-45, ". . . While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?"

 

[atpollard]

The Son of God, before He became the man Jesus.

"Before" gets tricky for an eternal Godhead.

[Genesis 2:7 NKJV] 7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

• Which member of the Trinity has hands to "form" and a mouth to "breathe"?

[Daniel 3:25 NKJV] 25 "Look!" he answered, "I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

• Which member of the Trinity has the form of a man "like the Son of God"?

[Hebrews 13:8 NKJV] 8 Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, today, and forever.

[Revelation 1:16 NKJV] 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance [was] like the sun shining in its strength.

 

[Yeshua1]

"Before" gets tricky for an eternal Godhead.

[Genesis 2:7 NKJV] 7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

• Which member of the Trinity has hands to "form" and a mouth to "breathe"?

[Daniel 3:25 NKJV] 25 "Look!" he answered, "I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

• Which member of the Trinity has the form of a man "like the Son of God"?

[Hebrews 13:8 NKJV] 8 Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, today, and forever.

[Revelation 1:16 NKJV] 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance [was] like the sun shining in its strength.

Jesus also stated that the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him quoting isaiah, so all 3 Persons mentioned there!

 

[37818]

"Before" gets tricky for an eternal Godhead.

Not really. The three distinct Persons are the one and the same eternal God. The Son was always both with the God, and was God too. John 1:1-3. So the Son is both eternal and temporal on behalf of God eternal. As "with the God" He changed (John 1:3, John 1:14) but as God the Son never changed.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not really. The three distinct Persons are the one and the same eternal God. The Son was always both with the God, and was God too. John 1:1-3. So the Son is both eternal and temporal on behalf of God eternal. As "with the God" He changed (John 1:3, John 1:14) but as God the Son never changed.

What do you mean by "the God", as all 3 Persons are equally "the God"

 

[atpollard]

The Sacrifice of the Mass | EWTN

Why needed, since the Cross of Christ sufficient to handle all of our sins period?

"Since the Mass has the same external sign, and the same interior dispositions on the part of Christ, we rightly call it a sacrifice, the continuation of Calvary. It does not need to earn redemption all over - that was done once for all (Hebrews 9:28) by His death. But since the Holiness of God loves everything that is good, and in good order, it pleases Him to have titles or reasons in place for what He will give (cf. Summa I. 19. 5. c). So it pleases Him to have the Mass provide the title for the distribution of what was once for all earned on Calvary."​

EWTN claims it is because it pleases God to have a title/reason (excuse/opportunity?) in place for the gifts that God gives ... so the Mass is an opportunity for God to again offer forgiveness purchased "once for all".

At the Last Supper He ordered, "Do this in memory of me". Since we were not there, He wants us to join our dispositions to His.​

EWTN claims it is an opportunity for us to obey the command of Christ and join Him at both the Last Supper and His death.

Secondly the people can be said to offer since: "The people join their hearts in praise, petition, expiation and thanksgiving with the prayers or intention of the priest, in fact, of the High Priest Himself, so that in the one and same of offering of the Victim... they may be presented to God the Father "(Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 39:556). Vatican II explains (LG # 10) that this is what it means for them to "offer spiritual sacrifices".​

EWTN claims that our "spiritual sacrifices" are offered up to the Father along with the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior.

It may be more "mystical" than I am personally comfortable with, but it does not appear to be claiming "salvation by attending Mass" or "Salvation by eating a cracker" (even a transmutated cracker). Which part is really "heretical"?

 

[atpollard]

Nothing good ever comes from debating the Trinity, but "no one has ever seen the Father except the Son" ... and SOMEBODY with a body keeps appearing as God from Genesis to Revelation. My money is on the Son. YMMV.

 

[Titus Tarnum]

So Jesus in burning bush, speaking to Abraham, speaking to Adam and eve?

Exodus 3:2 shows that the Angel of the Lord was who was in the burning bush and John 1:3 says nothing was made that was made apart from Jesus so that means Jesus made Adam and Eve in the garden so yes I agree with these awesome statements!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[37818]

What do you mean by "the God", as all 3 Persons are equally "the God"

Do you deny the Son of God has two natures in the incarnation? Do you deny the immutability of God? Do you deny Son being the Word changed in becoming flesh? Understand, how the Word was with the God changed. But that the Word was God did not change. The Son had to be both.

 

[utilyan]

Sometimes I like to imagine the mechanics of God's nature are COMPLEX rather than simple.


If anyone wants to challenge to Love God and Neighbor more than I do, I welcome it.

How to love God more and have faith in God more is a treasure to me.

 

[Yeshua1]

"Since the Mass has the same external sign, and the same interior dispositions on the part of Christ, we rightly call it a sacrifice, the continuation of Calvary. It does not need to earn redemption all over - that was done once for all (Hebrews 9:28) by His death. But since the Holiness of God loves everything that is good, and in good order, it pleases Him to have titles or reasons in place for what He will give (cf. Summa I. 19. 5. c). So it pleases Him to have the Mass provide the title for the distribution of what was once for all earned on Calvary."​

EWTN claims it is because it pleases God to have a title/reason (excuse/opportunity?) in place for the gifts that God gives ... so the Mass is an opportunity for God to again offer forgiveness purchased "once for all".

At the Last Supper He ordered, "Do this in memory of me". Since we were not there, He wants us to join our dispositions to His.​

EWTN claims it is an opportunity for us to obey the command of Christ and join Him at both the Last Supper and His death.

Secondly the people can be said to offer since: "The people join their hearts in praise, petition, expiation and thanksgiving with the prayers or intention of the priest, in fact, of the High Priest Himself, so that in the one and same of offering of the Victim... they may be presented to God the Father "(Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 39:556). Vatican II explains (LG # 10) that this is what it means for them to "offer spiritual sacrifices".​

EWTN claims that our "spiritual sacrifices" are offered up to the Father along with the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior.

It may be more "mystical" than I am personally comfortable with, but it does not appear to be claiming "salvation by attending Mass" or "Salvation by eating a cracker" (even a transmutated cracker). Which part is really "heretical"?

The big question is why even have it done, as it really mocks the death of Jesus!

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you deny the Son of God has two natures in the incarnation? Do you deny the immutability of God? Do you deny Son being the Word changed in becoming flesh? Understand, how the Word was with the God changed. But that the Word was God did not change. The Son had to be both.

Are all 3 persons"the God/Yahweh" equally?

 

[37818]

Are all 3 persons"the God/Yahweh" equally?

You did not answer my questions.
There is only one God whoes Name is Yahweh, meaning the Existent, and there is no other God. The distinct Persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are that one and the same God. Also there is how the Son is with the God. The Son is both.

 

[Titus Tarnum]

You did not answer my questions.
There is only one God whoes Name is Yahweh, meaning the Existent, and there is no other God. The distinct Persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are that one and the same God. Also there is how the Son is with the God. The Son is both.

I believe in the Trinity but I kind of agree with 37818 because of God's existence being eternal. I can't draw it but imagine a circle and in that circle is eternity, God is the circle and encompasses everything. God has three distinct aspects and I don't believe He can live without any of them just like we can't live without the different aspects that make up ourselves. So, if God the father is eternal and God the Son is eternal and the Holy Spirit is eternal they can't be separate in the sense that one eternal thing can't coexist with another eternal thing separately. Something can't be eternal in one part of the circle and you are eternal in another part of the circle because then I am not eternal in your section. All three aspects of God are eternal, without beginning or end, so they are one encompassing everything like you (vaguely) have a body soul and spirit and these three parts make up the one you. What do you think, did I nail it[emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Titus Tarnum]

"Since the Mass has the same external sign, and the same interior dispositions on the part of Christ, we rightly call it a sacrifice, the continuation of Calvary. It does not need to earn redemption all over - that was done once for all (Hebrews 9:28) by His death. But since the Holiness of God loves everything that is good, and in good order, it pleases Him to have titles or reasons in place for what He will give (cf. Summa I. 19. 5. c). So it pleases Him to have the Mass provide the title for the distribution of what was once for all earned on Calvary."​

EWTN claims it is because it pleases God to have a title/reason (excuse/opportunity?) in place for the gifts that God gives ... so the Mass is an opportunity for God to again offer forgiveness purchased "once for all".

At the Last Supper He ordered, "Do this in memory of me". Since we were not there, He wants us to join our dispositions to His.​

EWTN claims it is an opportunity for us to obey the command of Christ and join Him at both the Last Supper and His death.

Secondly the people can be said to offer since: "The people join their hearts in praise, petition, expiation and thanksgiving with the prayers or intention of the priest, in fact, of the High Priest Himself, so that in the one and same of offering of the Victim... they may be presented to God the Father "(Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 39:556). Vatican II explains (LG # 10) that this is what it means for them to "offer spiritual sacrifices".​

EWTN claims that our "spiritual sacrifices" are offered up to the Father along with the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior.

It may be more "mystical" than I am personally comfortable with, but it does not appear to be claiming "salvation by attending Mass" or "Salvation by eating a cracker" (even a transmutated cracker). Which part is really "heretical"?

So venial sins aren't remitted at the sacrifice of the mass?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Titus Tarnum]

Are all 3 persons"the God/Yahweh" equally?

Will God the father sit in one throne and God the Son sit an another throne in heaven?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Titus Tarnum]

Here's another thought seeing how I am throwing all caution to the wind, if God is eternal how can He be contained on a throne? What about heaven; is heaven bigger than God seeing how God lives in it? My answer to this is what we will see in heaven is a representation of the eternal God for our benefit, and if heaven contains God it would have to be eternal and never ending like God, so it would have to be an aspect of God. If light has always existed like God has always existed then light would have to be an aspect of God.
This really doesn't address the subject matter "what is Catholicism" sorry it's just out there[emoji848]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[37818]

What do you think, did I nail it

Three distince Persons and them being the one and the same God is nothing like one person having a body, soul and spirit. The three Persons each are distinct Persons in Spirit, Romans 8:9, Romans 8:16, but are also one and the same Spirit being the one and the same God, John 4:24, Isaiah 43:10-11.

 

[Titus Tarnum]

Clearly that is what YOU believe, but just for the record, what do Catholics believe?
Do Catholics even CLAIM that "saving grace" is imparted by the "Sacrifice of Mass"?

A short study online reveals that the one of the uses of the Holy Eucharist in the Sacrifice of Mass in the Roman Catholic Church is to remit venial sin. The idea that my sins pile up and need the re-application of Christ's sacrifice is in opposition to Hebrews
Heb 10 1-4, NKJV. For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sin.

When I am before God the Father He doesn't see my sin, only Christ blood applied to me once in my past. If Christ's blood is used to remove sins from me again, whether or not it is a mystical re-visitation of Christ's original sacrifice, that would mean the first covering didn't cover me and in a sense this mirrors the words of Hebrews 10. Christ covering on me would also need to cover my future sins because though I haven't committed them and I don't know that i'll do, God can still see them since He is omniscient. God can't see my sin because ALL of them are covered and if they're not, that would put me back to a pre-salvation "look" in God's eyes. This idea is the root of "eternal security".

I believe the main focus of The Book of Hebrews was to address the practice of systematic sin remediation being performed by the Hebrew Christians, which was the beginnings of the Sacrifice of Mass (and other sacraments) seen in the early Catholic Church as early as Justin Martyr's First Apology 154 A.D. It's likely this system had been growing and evolving since before The Book of Hebrews was written anywhere between 63-100 A.D.

I believe the writer is trying to explain the permanence of Christ's sacrifice to Hebrews that were attempting to use rituals as a replacement sacrificial system (like the Sacrifice of Mass is) Hebrews 5:11 shows that these Hebrews didn't have a good grasp of Christian doctrine and in 6:1-5 right before his warning in 6:6 it sounds like they were trying as a church to use rituals as a system of sin remediation:

6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,— NASB

The writer then explains this is like sacrificing Christ again (vs 6+) but that "we" are convinced of better things about them vs. 9.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Titus Tarnum]

Next In Chapter 7-8, the writer goes on to explain that they don't need their own priest because Christ is their perfect priest of the New Covenant.
Another crucial verse is 10:26 which to me smoothly ties into what I believe the writer is trying to say; that they're ignorant and they need to stop doing what they're doing, have faith and move on. 10:39. Prior to verse 10:26 though notice another reference that there isn't a sacrifice anymore;
Heb 10:17, 18 then he adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.— NASB

This verse doesn't say they don't have sin and don't need a sacrifice, it says (indirectly) that the sacrifice was made and because if it God ignores the sin.
In contrast:
Heb 10:26, 27: For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries— NASB

In the space of 10 versus the writer says twice that there is no more sacrifice for sin. The first time in vs. 18 it is said in a positive way and the second in vs. 27 it is said in a negative way, but in either case it proves that Christ was the last sacrifice for sin. To me 10:26, 27 sounds like the writer is telling them "if you keep doing these rituals (go on sinning deliberately) after I've told you what you're doing is wrong (You received the knowledge of the truth) you're going to be judged for it.

10:35, 36: Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. — NASB (Resurrection)


Heb 10:39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.— NASB

In 10:39 the writer points out that they have faith and this differentiates them from the others who shrink back and are destroyed. If they ignored his teachings and continued to use rituals in an attempt to remove their sin they would be those that are shrinking back into their old ways that the Hebrews were used to. Two different types of people, two different reasons why there is no longer a sacrifice for sin. The first reason is because you have faith and God chooses not to remember your sins, and the second reason is that God no longer excepts any other sacrifice other than Jesus Christ.
So that's my take on Hebrews; it's not explaining how someone loses their salvation but instead it's explaining the mechanics of Christ priesthood, and it specifically warns against attempting to re-sacrifice Jesus Christ by constructing a sacrificial system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk